Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 28
#1572914
map5623 wrote:I am sure most of understand the benefits of adsb, BUT it is currently not currently present in numbers. Which is partly due to availability and price.
So unless the CAA ban PAW, most unlikely. We will have a fleet with a mix of product.
As long as you can see the other airfraft, even if he cannot see you, hopefully you will make the correct decision and avoid a MAC.


Exactly !

I can see people who have deep pockets and have paid thousands for ADSB.

I get warnings of normal pilots with ModeS or ModeC, I can see the gliders who have fitted Flarm (not ALL have)

I even see all the other PAWs.

What I personally want is Flarm mandatory ! Those gliders are hard to spot !
#1572919
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:
Cessna57 wrote: Beats me why anyone would not want to be seen.


People with PAW only are not seen (EC wise) by anyone unless they have PAW.

The sold out comment was made as that is what was shown when I looked.

Even at 1500 units that is still a very small number and we know for sure that at least 3 are languishing on a shelf in a hangar, I suspect there will be more as well as a number of uncompleted units.

I understand your frustration - PAW advocates see PAW as the panacea of EC, and certainly if I was also involved in the development, promotion and sale of the units I would be very frustrated with anyone 'criticising' its virtues.

Fact is that PAW does not operate to an international standard or contribute to this and that is its greatest drawback.

Develop it so it does ADS-B out and many of the naysayers would take a different view.


Most of this is disinformation.
The quote is taken completely out of context too.

Ho hum.

That's not what PAW users say.
I'm not frustrated.

Ok, so certain people here have a different investment in EC. I can understand PAW frustrates them. I'm very disappointed in the way they have conducted themselves.

We're back to the same old same conversation I had with Cub before he deleted all his posts about his vested interest.

I can't be bothered to go and find the thread, it's around, the one where I explain my involvement with PAW and all Cub's posts now say "deleted". (You can't actually delete a post in a thread).
Last edited by Cessna57 on Tue Nov 21, 2017 10:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
#1572920
map5623 wrote:".................legally or morally."
Don't know that I would like to be the company (lawyer) called to a coroners inquest to defend the copyright arguement.

But Flarm data is available, you just have to pay for it, like anything else in aviation. About £650 for a finished product or, by rumour, £200 for the OEM module that can be built into another product (e.g. PAW). No ongoing subscription/fees. Yes, I think it could/should be cheaper but it is well down my list of aviation related rip-offs. Maybe Flarm should be approached to produce a receive-only module? It woudn't be any cheaper to produce but there must still be plenty margin in it and it would allow them to differentiate from their (and their OEMs') mainstream products.

BTW, if anybody had suggested a year or so ago that I would end up batting for Flarm on an internet forum I'd have phoned the men in white coats. I don't think the situation with Flarm is great either, but they get a lot of flak they don't deserve.
Alan
Nick liked this
#1572926
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:
Cessna57 wrote: Beats me why anyone would not want to be seen.


People with PAW only are not seen (EC wise) by anyone unless they have PAW.


That’s a fact, so no argument there, but PAW equipped aircraft will see most other EC equipped aircraft. That’s what Dave obviously meant ‘Why would anyone (with Mode C, S or ADS ) not want to be seen (by the 1,500 or so other aircraft equipped with PAW)’ (My inclusions in the brackets.)

The sold out comment was made as that is what was shown when I looked.


Dave has already explained why they ‘sold out’ which has to be a good thing as all those new users will be able to see you.

Even at 1500 units that is still a very small number and we know for sure that at least 3 are languishing on a shelf in a hangar, I suspect there will be more as well as a number of uncompleted units.


I’d be surprised if there are many ‘uncompleted units’. Most pilots spending £200 for a complete unit will try their best to get it installed and working. In my experience those who abandon it generally do so because it hasn’t been set up properly and they don’t ask for help (freely available via the PAW Forum).

I understand your frustration - PAW advocates see PAW as the panacea of EC, and certainly if I was also involved in the development, promotion and sale of the units I would be very frustrated with anyone 'criticising' its virtues.


What frustration? With significantly increasing numbers of users who can all see each other, see most other EC and Flarm users, including gliders, GA aircraft and RAF trainers via OGN-R or direct Flarm integration, what’s to be frustrated about?

Fact is that PAW does not operate to an international standard or contribute to this and that is its greatest drawback.

Develop it so it does ADS-B out and many of the naysayers would take a different view.


From its inception, PAW HAS contributed to air safety using the international standard by displaying the positions of ADSB equipped aircraft. It doesn’t claim to be a replacement for ADSB, rather it operates alongside it, supplementing it’s original ADSB reception with information on all those Mode C and Mode S transponders which can’t be converted to ADSB and won’t be ‘replaced’ by SkyEcho because SE doesn’t help with zone transits. The P3i bit is a bonus for those who will never fly in CAS but can thereby also see each other as well as other EC equipped aircraft.

Don’t be so negative. In my experience, many PilotAware users go on to equip with ADSB out by adding a Mode S transponder and connecting it to their PAW for the GPS position input, which gives us the best of all worlds.

Until the next generation of high power ADSB Out/In (Mode S-ES ‘transceivers’) come along (and my money is on that being very soon), we all need to work together and make the best of what we currently have, rather than arguing over what is ‘in our opinion’ - ‘best’.
Last edited by exfirepro on Tue Nov 21, 2017 11:32 am, edited 8 times in total.
PeteSpencer, Cessna57, ivor.phillips and 1 others liked this
#1572928
exfirepro wrote:The beauty of OGN-R is that it simply adds rebroadcast of local glider positions direct from each suitably equipped OGN receiver to reduce the risk of (PAW equipped) powered aircraft flying into the gliders - presumably therefore also a (free) additional safety service to Flarm’s customers.

For powered aircraft, PAW with OGN/R does almost everything (arguably more) than Powerflarm, at 10% of the cost. The only advantage of Powerflarm (avoiding the installation aesthetics controversy) is that PF transmits Flarm as well. Many people will be happy to see gliders but not be seen by them, saving £1800 in the process. How is that not competing with Flarm?
Alan
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1572931
exfirepro wrote:From its inception, PAW HAS contributed to air safety using the international standardby displaying the positions of ADSB equipped aircraft. It doesn’t claim to be a replacement for ADSB, rather it operates alongside it, supplementing it’s original ADSB reception with information on all those Mode C and Mode S transponders which can’t be converted to ADSB and won’t be ‘replaced’ by SkyEcho because SE doesn’t help with zone transits. The P3i bit is a bonus for those who will never fly in CAS but can thereby also see each other.

Don’t be so negative. In my experience, many PilotAware users go on to equip with ADSB out by adding a Mode S transponder and connecting it to their PAW for the GPS position input, which gives us the best of all worlds.

Until the next generation of high power ADSB Out/In (Mode S-ES ‘transceivers’ come along (and my money is on that being very soon), we all need to work together and make the best of what we currently have, rather than arguing over what is ‘in our opinion’ - ‘best’.


I was referring to C57's expressed frustration.

PAW does not transmit either a transponder signal nor ADS-B and as such does not contribute to 'the system as is' (neither does FLARM!) and as such cannot be seen by the majority of aeroplanes which have EC nor by Air Traffic Services.

What is stopping you (as I believe you too are involved in PAW) from transmitting ADS-B via PAW?
gaznav liked this
#1572942
A small point that I don't think gets much mentioned but it seems to me that while a single unified system is probably best (best being the enemy of good) it really only requires one half of a potential midair to be aware of the other for a midair to be avoided.
What I mean is, PAW users seem to have the best all round ability to detect a variety of EC signals so, absent suicidal intent, that should surely be sufficient to keep people safe.
Those who want/need Mode C/S + ADSB, fine, fill your boots and you can probably rest easy that PAW users will see you and stay away.
#1572944
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:
I was referring to C57's expressed frustration.

PAW does not transmit either a transponder signal nor ADS-B and as such does not contribute to 'the system as is' (neither does FLARM!) and as such cannot be seen by the majority of aeroplanes which have EC nor by Air Traffic Services.

What is stopping you (as I believe you too are involved in PAW) from transmitting ADS-B?


Hi again FD,

My involvement with PilotAware is mainly in a ‘Development/Testing and Support’ role, so ‘policy’ is not my remit, but changing to 1090 would certainly involve major redesign and re-certification costs, which is a lot to ask from a small group who started the project as a ‘service to aviators’ rather than as a profit making venture, while the CAA and others were still trying to make up their minds. It would also be rather bad form to simply abandon by the wayside those who have already supported and ‘bought into’ the PilotAware project.

We’re definitely NOT ‘anti-ADSB’ though- far from it - the more people who equip with ADSB out, rather than ‘plain Mode C or S’, the better we can all see them.

PilotAware will continue to provide for the massive number of pilots out there who can’t afford (or can’t justify the cost of) ADSB, perhaps because they only fly low hours local to their own airfield, who prefer to equip with PAW for its ‘local’ point to point and wider ADSB / Mode C/S / OGN-R awareness, or simply want to run PilotAware while they save up for a nice new transponder ready to go Mode S-ES (ADSB).

Please note, these are my own opinions only and not an official comment on behalf of the PilotAware Team.

Regards

Peter
gaznav liked this
By Nick
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1572952
Yes, everything helps but I fear that a little misinformation or misleading statement from time to time is used to push PAW by some.

PAW is good but it could be better. All I would say is look at what you can afford and then look what you have already. If you have a transponder there are several ways of getting ADS-B out. Check if a unit you already have could do it, such as a horizon with built in GPS (Kanardia) for instance. Two additional wires remember!!!

If you have nothing else and can only aford £200 then go for PAW if you can afford a little more then weigh up what is best for you.

Nick
By cockney steve
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1572959
The fact that certain products "don't meet international standards" are "not approved"...does not negate their value, their contribution to safety nor their cost- effectiveness.
GA is a totally different kettle of fish to Commercial Aviation (UK, there is the odd light aircraft doing Aerial Survey/ Photography etc. and the odd John Travolta who flies an airliner in a private capacity....but let's not cloud the issue with pedantry.
It would appear that most MAC's occur, NOT when GA and "heavy" traffic mix, but when amateurs and trainees are out-and-about. Within that "light/ GA " group, there are Certified and Permit A/C (and a few SSDR's )
As is common, Aviation rules, regulation and law seem to be reactive, rather than pro-active.

Over a thousand UK pilots have decided that a £200 device is better than no device. It seems a very dog-in a-manger attitude to refuse to make any use of that information, just because it's not "approved."....Plenty of light aircraft flying safely for decades in Europe and USA, but not here, 'cos they're not "approved"
ISTR a thread stating there are better systems than ADSB /Mode S....but,of course, there has to be a 10-year hiatus while the powers that be, approve......meanwhile, somebody comes up with a totally affordable, useful, pragmatic solution for the lower-end of the market and a faction are intent on poo-pooing it., because it "isn't approved"
WELL START A BIT OF LATERAL THINKING , THEN, AND APPROVE THE BLOODY THING!....any safety- increment is better than none!...next, weather-radar will become compulsory!....well, it's a huge safety-aid to everybody who's got it, isn't it?- otherwise, why would they spend such vast sums on a seldom-used-in -anger bit of kit?
Gliders have their own specific needs. VFR GA , Ditto, IFR GA, ditto. Commercial heavy traffic, ditto. How about "horses for courses" Don't get me started on the stupidity of not allowing 2 bits of kit to be plugged together with out reams of paperwork....there are people dying out there because someone sits on their high horse demanding they have their input (and get their cut)

I always feel better after a good rant....even a mediocre one can be refreshing. :mrgreen:
exfirepro liked this
User avatar
By rikur_
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1572965
exfirepro wrote:....but changing to 1090 would certainly involve major redesign and re-certification costs, which is a lot to ask from a small group who started the project as a ‘service to aviators’

Peter - helpful post - thanks
I must admit I was probably expecting to see an ADS-B out add-on to PAW appear at some point. Out of curiosity, is the issue primarily certification/licensing, or technical - or a bit of both?

I do very much acknowledge the work that the PAW group has done at helping bring EC into the limelight, into the hands of many and provide valuable learning - even if the PAW radio protocol itself ends up have no long term future.
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1572970
exfirepro wrote:
My involvement with PilotAware is mainly in a ‘Development/Testing and Support’ role, so ‘policy’ is not my remit, but changing to 1090 would certainly involve major redesign and re-certification costs, which is a lot to ask from a small group who started the project as a ‘service to aviators’ rather than as a profit making venture, while the CAA and others were still trying to make up their minds. It would also be rather bad form to simply abandon by the wayside those who have already supported and ‘bought into’ the PilotAware project.


I know nothing about electronics but would have thought that it could be added just as FLARM can be added to the basic module?

The intransigence of the regulator argument may have had some validity in times gone by but does not hold water now.

The PAW team may have had good reasons to go down the route of a proprietary format/frequency but ultimately that will be limiting its marketability and from an operability point of view remain its weakest point.
gaznav liked this
  • 1
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 28